 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bal v. Commonwealth3/14/2003
Karamjit Singh Bal (Licensee) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County (trial court) dismissing Licensee's statutory appeal from a one-year suspension of his operating privileges imposed by the Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (Department), for his refusal to submit to chemical testing pursuant to Section 1547(b)(1) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. § 1547(b)(1). We affirm.
The Department sent a notice to Licensee informing him that his operating privileges would be suspended for one year as a result of his refusal to submit to chemical testing on October 6, 2001. Licensee appealed to the trial court which conducted a de novo hearing.
At the hearing, Patrolman Donald Peterson stated that he went to the scene of a motor vehicle crash on October 6, 2001. Patrolman Peterson placed Licensee under arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol and transported him to the police station. At the police station, Patrolman Peterson read the implied consent warnings to Licensee from a Form DL-26. In addition to reading the implied consent form to Licensee, Patrolman Peterson also requested Licensee to sign the form, which he did. Patrolman Peterson then asked Licensee if he would submit to a breath test and Licensee agreed. The breath test was administered by Officer James Disney. Patrolman Peterson observed Licensee taking the test and noticed that Licensee blew into the machine a number of times and was able to give enough breath for the first test. However, there was always a problem with the second test and the machine aborted twice because of insufficient samples.
Officer Disney testified that he read the implied consent warnings to Licensee and that he acknowledged that he understood what was requested and that he understood English and wrote and spoke the language. He informed Licensee that he needed to steadily breathe into the tube and not stop until he was told. Officer Disney testified that Licensee successfully completed the first test. However, the second time he went to administer the test, Licensee was blowing out the side of his mouth and the instrument aborted indicating an insufficient breath. Officer Disney stated that the regulations require two consecutive breath samples.
Following Licensee's failure to provide two samples, he was taken to a holding cell. Officer Disney than gave Licensee another opportunity to take the test thinking that there was a possibility that Licensee didn't quite understand exactly what he wanted. This time, Licensee again gave a sufficient breath test on the first try. However, during the second test, Licensee again kept blowing outside of the mouthpiece and the machine again indicated that Licensee gave an insufficient breath sample. Licensee's actions were recorded as a refusal.
Licensee testified on his own behalf that he was born in India but has lived in the United States for seventeen years. He stated that he does not read, write or understand English very good. He also testified that he has been driving a taxi since 1993. On the night of October 6, Licensee understood that he was being arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. He stated, however, that neither officer advised him that if he refused to take the breath test that his license would be suspended. Licensee also claimed that he cooperated fully with the officers' requests and that he blew into the breathalyzer machine five or six times.
The trial court found the testimony of the police officers more credible than that of Licensee. Specifically, the officers asked Licensee to submit to a breath test, Licensee failed to provide a sufficient sample and as such his ac
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|